Postmodernists on Tralfamadore

Like Ragtime and Mumbo Jumbo, Slaughterhouse-Five has been another enjoyable read. Vonnegut’s ability to incorporate humor in such a serious and deadly event surprises me, and the Tralfamadorians somewhat confuse me, but both lead me to wonder why Vonnegut wrote this narrative of the bombing of Dresden the way he did. The Tralfamadorians, especially, seem out of place at first, but I think that they further support Vonnegut’s mission to create an antiwar novel.

In chapter one, Vonnegut explains “how tempting Dresden has been to write about,” yet “not many words about [it] came from [his] mind” (2). In class, we discussed that he wanted to make this novel an antiwar novel and anti-war novel, which may have been part of his delay. Just so we’re on the same page, an antiwar novel (we defined) is a novel that portrays war in a negative view—or at least claims to do so. Sometimes, antiwar stories can sort of glamorize the struggles that soldiers and civilians face, making war and the problems that those who are directly involved deal with, a distant reality that portrays those individuals as clearly suffering but possibly also heroic for facing those issues. Vonnegut, rather, goes a step further and creates an anti-war novel, a novel about war but is nothing like what one would expect from the traditional war or antiwar novel.

The Tralfamadorians obviously make Slaughterhouse-Five an anti-war story, for no other story about war prior to this novel incorporates such “unrealistic” science fiction. Nonetheless, I find that they have a somewhat postmodernist view of history. They see history as scenes without “any particular relationship between” them—“no moral[s], no causes, no effects” that can be drawn from, lead to, or result from the events—rather, just events or facts that are not influenced by any overarching metanarrative (88). Vonnegut’s writing style of direct, unemotional descriptions of the war along with this Tralfamadorian/postmodernist style makes it seem that Vonnegut may be suggesting that war is similar to and maybe should only be seen through the Tralafamadorian style. War, like Tralfamadorain history, is just a series of events that, although have much effect to mainly those who are directly involved (so it goes,) have no causes (what are the motivations behind bombing civilians?) and no morals. Usual war and antiwar novels incorporate strength in difficulties (in two very different connotations, one promoting war while the other criticizing it) or other morals, but Vonnegut disproves the strength needed in war as two skilled soldiers of the Three Musketeers are quickly killed, but the weak Billy Pilgrim survives. By placing this events-only Tralfamadorian view of time and history beside a war story, Vonnegut seems to be asking us what is the moral to be drawn from war and is there a moral to be drawn from war? in the same unanswerable way of “Poo-tee-weet?” As an antiwar novel, the answer may be that there is no moral of strength, toughness, etc. to be found in war, but thousands of deaths can lead to the conclusion that war is unnecessary.